US3653072A

US3653072A - Process for producing circuit artwork utilizing a data processing machine

Info

Publication number: US3653072A
Application number: US1366A
Authority: US
Inventors: Joseph A Ballas; Robert A Penick
Original assignee: Texas Instruments Inc
Current assignee: Texas Instruments Inc
Priority date: 1970-01-08
Filing date: 1970-01-08
Publication date: 1972-03-28
Anticipated expiration: 1989-03-28

Abstract

Artwork for a logic circuit to be fabricated by printed circuit board techniques is produced by a data processing machine programmed to run a packaging routine, a placement routine, and a routing routine, in addition to check routines. All logic elements for a particular circuit are coded and identified prior to carrying out any of the machine run routines. This circuit diagram information, along with mechanical criteria of the printed circuit board on which the circuit is to be fabricated, are supplied as input data to the data processing machine. The data processing machine first takes the coded circuit diagram information and checks it for errors. It then packages the individual logic elements into multi-element units (integrated circuits). Upon completion of the packaging routine, the data processor places the multi-element units within the limits of the mechanical criteria supplied as input data. After the packaging and placing routines have been completed, the machine routes interconnections between the terminal pins of the multi-element units using a numbered ordered maze restrained to proceed within pre-established limits.

Description

United States Patent Ballas et al.

[ 1 Mar. 28, 1972 [72] Inventors: Joseph A. Belles, Dallas; Robert A. Penlck, Richardson, both of Tex.

Texas Instruments Incorporated, Dallas, Tex.

[22] Filed: Jan.8, 1970 [21] Appl.No.: 1,366

[73] Assignee:

[52] U.S.Cl. ..444/001,235/151.l1

[51] Iut.Cl. ..G06t 15/46 [58] FIeldotSearch ..235/l50,I5I,l5l.l,15l.ll; 340/ 172.5

[56] References Cited OTHER PUBLICATIONS Lee: An Algarithum for Path Connections IRE Transactions on Electric Comp. Sept. 1961p. 346- 365 r i r a Assembl es l h a m j iflntgr: connections IRE Trans. on Electronic Computers Feb. 1962 F- 86-88 m..- Breuer: General Survey of Design Automation IEEE Proceedings Vol. 54, Dec. 1966 p. 1708- 172'] Hyman et al.: Computer Automated Design: Advances in El. Packaging Symposium August, 1967 p. IECP4/3- 1 to 14 Hays: Computer Aided Design Transactions on Computers,

Vol. Cl8,Jan. 1969 p. 1-10 Dietmeyer et a1: Logic Design Automation Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-l8, Jan. I969 p. ll- 22 Primary Examiner-Felix D. Gruber Attorney-James 0. Dixon, Andrew M. I-Iassell, Harold Levine, Melvin Sharp, JohnE. Vandigrifi, Henry T. Olsen, Michael A. Sileo, Jr. and Gary C. I-Ioneycutt [57] I ABSTRACT I Artwork foralogic circuit to be fabricated by printed circuit board techniques is produced by a data processing machine programmed to run a packaging routine, a placement routine, and a routingroutine, in addition to check routines. All logic elements for a particular circuit are coded and identified prior to carrying out any of the machine run routines. This circuit diagram information, along with mechanical criteria of the printed circuit board on which the circuit is to be fabricated, are supplied as input data to the data processing machine. The data processing machine first takes the coded circuit diagram information and checks it for errors. It then packages the individual logic elements into multi-element units (integrated circuits). Upon completion of the packaging routine, the data processor places the multi-element units within the limits of the mechanical criteria supplied as input data. After the packaging and placing routines have been completed, the machine routes interconnections between the terminal pins of the multi-element units using a numbered ordered maze restrained to proceed within pre-established limits.

24 Claims, 16 Drawing Figures no CHANNEL TAPE READ I/O CHANNEL 4-)- CARD READ (ll MAIN STORAGE l/O CHANNEL l/O DEvICE MULTIPLEXOR H CHANNEL I3 STORAGE VARIABLE CONTROL (Q25 FIXED-POINT FLOATING-POINT FIELD-LENGTH SELECTOR OPERATIONS OPERATIONS OPERATIONS CHANNEL 1 if l r GENERAL FLOATING-POINT V0 CHANNEL TAPE READ REGISTERS REGISTERS I/O CHANNEL M 1/0 DEvICE I/O CHANNEL 1-) I/O DEVICE mzm nmze m2 SHEU 03 0F 12 ROUGH DESCRIPTION OF. NEED I LOGIC DIAGRAM INFORMATION DEFINE MECHANICAL CRITERIA l0 A la CODE INTO CARDS CODE INTO CARDS j l2 20 V CHECK DATA A 1 CHECK DATA STORE GEOMETRY IN COMPUTER m K ,24

CHECK DATA '1 I PACKAGE LOGIC CIRCUIT ELEMENTS MULTI ELE TEST POINTS, CONNECTOR PINS PLACE mam PACKAGES Q I FIG. 3

CONNECT ELEMENT PINS, "w E CHECK FOR COMPLETION 'X COM PLE TE YES PRODUCE ARTWORK DOCUMENTATION AND TOOLING 7 INSTRUCTIONS a MANUAL PRODUCE HARDWARE ALTER AND COMPLETE MANUALLY PATENTEDIIIIR28 I572 SHEET OR HF 12 SORT LOGIC SYSTEM ELEMENTS BY TYPE FORM A BEST PACKAGE YET" FROM ELEMENTS FOR FIRST TYPE THAT ARE NOT PACKAGED I FORM A BEST PACKAGE FOR NEXT TYPE COMPARE SELECTED BEST PACKAGE WITH "BEST. PACKAGE YET" SELECT BEST PACKAGE OF THE COMPARISON DISCARD PACKAGE NOT SELECTED HAVE ALL TYPES BEEN CONSIDERED IDENTIFY SELECTED BEST PACKAGE AS A FIXED PACKAGE FIX SIGNATURES OF FIXED PACKAGE HAVE ALL LOGIC SYSTEM ELEMENTS BEEN PACKAGED P PLACEMENT ROUTINE INVENTORS'. JOSEPH A. BALLAS ROBERT A. PEN/CK PATENTEnIIIII28 I972 3,653,072

SHEET 05 III 12 COMPUTE AN EVALUATION SCORE TO LOCATE EACH PACKAGE AND COMPUTE ITS BEST LEGITIMATE POSITION PLACE THE PACKAGE WITH THE BEST SCORE IN ITS BEST LEGITIMATE POSITION "N 80 a3 RECDMPUTE SCORES J AND BEST POSITION FOR AFFECTED PACKAGES ARE ALL READ MECHANICAL CRITERIA p INCLUDING POSITIONS ACKAGESP PLACED AVAILABLE AND THE NUMBER OF PACKAGES TO BE PLACED I, INTERCHANGE A PAIR OF I I W PLACED PACKAGES ON A TRIAL W0] BASIS l 4m- ...M...I' If I A, A H, I N.. A, I

w COM I: THE SIGNATURE I I ABILITIES OF THE INO AFI I; I ;I' J :IICI IATURES OF THE II'I'IETRCFIAINGEU PAIR REMOVE SI R S F CII II HE I INPUT/OUIIUI CONNHQTOR PINS THAT ARE COI\/II\/I\)I\I WITI-I ALL PRIiI-LACED PACKAJES IN 88 CONNECTOR FIIILS'ITILWS IS THE C v vI%I%2IEI EI$Y I 70 YES IMPRFQVED NO IDENTIFY THE PACKAGE THAT IS NOT PLACED OR ASSIGNED FIX RETURN WITH THE MOST SIGNATURES INTERCHANGE PACKAGES IN COMMON WITH THE J I MODIFIED INPUT/OUTPUT 89 L CONNECTOR ALT IEE R OvE SIGNATURES FROM THE I UT/OUTPUT CONNECTOR IN PACKAGES BEEN COMMON WITH THE IDENTIFIED- CONSIDERED FOR PACKAGE INTERCPHANGE ARE ALL P SRO N SISE OR ALL SIGNATURE? SHOULD EMOvED FROM THE AN ADDITIONAL CONNECTOR INTERCHANGE PASS NO P BE MADE P ROUTING YES F 5 ROUTINE PATENTEDIMHZEB 1972 A 3.653 O72 SHEET 05' [1F 12 IS PASS 1 REQUlgSTED YES READ IN SIGNAL SET IS END OF DATA SAME P PASS 2 RPEQUESTE AS PASS REQUEST has PASS 3 IQUESTED SAME As PAss I REQUEST CALL PASS I04 END WRITE SIGNAL SET 6 lu/amor'a JOSEPH A. BALLAS ROBERT A. PEN/CK PATiNTEnIIIIIze I972 3,653,072

SHEET 07 [1F 12 IS BUSSING REQUESTED YES CALL BUSS IS v THERE ANOTHER NO RETURN "FROrg-TO" H4 IS THIS A NON-ASSIGNED CONNECTOR OR TEST POINT HAS IT BEEN ROUTED F) CALL BOUNDING INSTRUCTIONS DEFINE START AND DESTINATION POINTS CALL MAzE DEFINE STORE INFORMATION EOUIvALENCE CLASS ABOUT PATH FOUND TO WHICH ROUTING AND PINS SELECTED BELONGS (IF PATH FOUND) I36 134 INVENTORS:

JOSEPH A. BALLAS FIG. 7 ROBERT A. PEN/CK YES YES

WAS PASS ONE CALLED CALL BUSS IS BUSSING IZEQUESTED NO YES I76 THERE IENOTHER N0 V RETURN FROM-TO YES CALL PASS lC HAS IT BEENP ROUTED IS THIS A NON-ASSIGNED YES WAS YES CALL CONNECTOR OR P ONE CALLED PASS 2C TEST POINT P CALL BOUNDING L DEFINE START AND I INSTRUCTIONS DESTINATI N POINTS I CALL W W I92 I82 I90 DEFINE STORE INFORMATION EOUIvALENcE CLASS ABOUT PATH FOUND TO WHICH ROUTING AND PINS SELECTED BELONGS 3 (IF PATH FOUND) x I96 /94 INVENTORS: F IG. 8 JOSEPH A. BALLAS ROBERT A. PEN/CK PATENTEDHARZBIHYZ 3,653,072

SHEET USUF .12

IS BUSSING REQUESTED YES RETURN IS THERE A SINGLE OCCURENCE OF A TEST POINT OR CONNEPCTOR WAS PASS ONE CALLED IS THERE ANOTHER "FROhP/l-TO" HA5 woww lmzo IT BEENPROUTED CONNECTOR OR TEST PPOINT CALL BOUNDING DEFINE START AND INSTRUCTIONS T DESTINATION POINTS DEFINE STORE INFORMATION I EQUIVALENCE CLASS ABOUT PATH FOUND CALL MAZE TO WHICH ROUTING T AND PINS SELECTED BELONGS (I PATH FOUND) 228 232 230 IN /ENTOR S.

JOSEPH A. BALLAS FIG. 9 ROBERT A. PEN/CK PATENTEDIIIIR28 I972 3, 653.072

SHEET IUIJF 12 N S cONNEcToR IS ON E w I40 I I I I DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE N-coNNEcToR S-cONNEcTOR E-coNNEcTOR W-CONNECTOR PARAMETERS PARAMETERS W PARAMETERS j PARAMETERS /42 I42 I42 II II l I I PREPARE AREA DEFINED BY PARAMETERS FOR A MAzE EXECUTION '1 DEFINE ALL UNUSED cONNEcTOR PINS (ON THE APPROPRIATE I CONNECTOR) WITH PREPARED AREA AS START POINTS w DEFINE ALL PINS AND PATHS OF THIS SIGNAL SET AS DESTINATION POINTS T L ROuTE h I RESTORE DESTINATION cELLS TO AVAILABLE STATUS II L REBARRIER cONNEcTOR PINS wA ROUTING SgCCESSFUL SAVE PERTINENT INFORMATION CONCERNINGFOIGABH THAT WAS SAVE PERTINENT INFORMATION ABOUT CONNECTOR PIN THAT WAS SELECTED PATENTEnmae I972 3.653072 sum 1211f 12 HWHZH M M FIG. /3, u n n 250 2sa n u a I u llllllllllll FIG. /4

INVENTORY): JOSEPH A. BALL/15 7 ROBERT A. PEN/CK PROCESS FOR PRODUCING CIRCUIT ARTWORK UTILIZING A DATA PROCESSING MACHINE This invention relates to a circuit layout technique, and more particularly to a process for producing artwork for a logic circuit to be fabricated by printed circuit techniques.

l-leretofore, the artwork for most logic circuits that were fabricated on a printed circuit board was drawn by hand using cut and try" procedures. So long as the logic system was of a simple design, manual layout techniques produced accurate artwork for use in the manufacture of the printed circuit board. With the increased complexity of logic systems, the artwork produced by hand contained an unacceptable number of errors."'Further, as the logic circuitry became more complex, the time required for the hand layout increased to a prohibitive level.

It was early recognized that data processing machines (computers) could be used to layout and produce the artwork for logic circuits. Many processes have been developed for use with data processing machines to assist in laying out and roducing the artwork for a logic circuit. Most of these processes have been directed to routing techniques performed by a data processor to interconnect the various logic elements or packages of elements that have been previously assigned a given location.

An object of this invention is to provide a process for producing circuit artwork by means of a data processing machine. Another object of this invention is to produce circuit artwork by a data processing machine that runs a check routine on the input data. Yet another object of this invention is to produce circuit artwork by a data processing machine that assigns individual circuit elements to multielement packages. A further object of this invention is to provide a process for producing circuit artwork with a data processing machine that assigns multielement packages within limits of mechanical criteria. Yet another object of this invention is to provide a process for producing circuit artwork using a data processing machine to route interconnections between various terminal pins of multielement units previously located. Yet another object of this invention is to produce circuit artwork by a data processing machine that runs a check routine on the routed interconnections. A still further object of this invention is to provide a process for producing circuit artwork using a data processing machine that assigns individual circuit elements to a multielement package by repetitive steps that select the best multielement package. Still another object of this invention is to provide a process for producing circuit artwork using a data processing machine that places a multielement package within circuit criteria on the basis of a calculated score. An additional object of this invention is to provide a process for producing circuit artwork using a data processing machine that routes interconnections between elements by a numbered ordered maze constrained to run within preestablished limits.

In accordance with one process for producing circuit artwork, artwork for a logic system is produced by initially packaging individual circuit elements by a routine that selects the best multielement unit yet by a first comparison of one multielement unit with a multielement unit formed from elements of another type. After all the multielement units have been considered in a first pass,'the best unit is then considered a fixed package and additional passes are made to select the best multielement unit by an additional series of comparisons. After each selection of a best multielement unit for a given comparison, the remaining multielement unit formed for that comparison is cancelled and a new multielement unit of that type will be formed in the subsequent pass. After completing the packaging routine, the multielement units are located on a printed circuit board within limits of mechanical criteria supplied as input data to the processing machine. After packaging and placing the circuit elements, routing interconnections are generated between terminal pins of the individual elements using a numbered ordered maze. To complete the process of defining interconnections between the elements, the routing information is conveyed to a plotter that generates the artwork for a desired logic system.

In accordance with another process for producing circuit artwork, coded infonnation of a logic system including mechanical criteria is input data to a data processing machine. First, the data processor generates representations of multielement packages containing the individual elements of the logic system. After completion of the packaging routine, the multielement packages are located on a printed circuit board within limits of the mechanical criteria supplied to the machine. To locate the multielement packages formed by the packaging routine, the data processor computes a score for each multielement unit to be located. Starting with the best score, the packages are located in the best legitimate position available for that unit. The remaining units are then considered after recomputing a score for the effected units, starting with the best remaining score, and the unit with the highest score is placed in a best legitimate position. This process is repeated until all packages have been placed. After placing all the multielement packages on a score basis, the entire logic system is reinvestigated to determine if an improvement of the initial placement is possible. Upon completion of the placement routine, the data processor interconnects terminal pins of the individual circuit elements using a numbered ordered maze. Finally, the routing information is conveyed to a plotter that generates artwork for the logic system coded into the data processor.

In accordance with still another process for producing circuit artwork, circuit artwork for a logic system is generated using a plotter connected to the output of a data processor. Input information to the data processor includes identifying codes for each of the logic circuit elements, the element terminal pins, signature identification and mechanical criteria. First, the individual circuit elements are packaged into multielement units on the basis of the circuit identification codes, terminal pin codes, and signature codes. These multielement units are then located on a printed circuit board within mechanical criteria supplied as input data to the data processor. After packaging and placing the logic elements, interconnections between terminal pins of the various elements are established using a numbered ordered maze restrained to proceed within pre-established limits. Input information to the routing routine includes signal set groups which consist of pin identification (including X and Y coordinates) along with from-to information. Starting at the first pin location in a pin listing, a numbered ordered maze is constructed within preestablished limits until it reaches a destination point. Upon reaching a destination point, a backtrack routine is called which establishes the shortest path within the maze back to the start point. The routing routine of the present invention includes three passes for interconnecting the various element terminal pins. Each pass restricts the maze progression to certain predefined limits. Upon completion of one run of the routine, the interconnections not completed on the first run may be attempted by running the routing routine again, each time changing the bounding criteria. After all the interconnections have been completed, a plotter is supplied the coded information produced by the data processing machine to generate artwork for the logic system of interest.

In accordance with yet another process for producing circuit artwork, a data processing machine supplies input information to a plotter that produces the circuit artwork. Input information to the data processor includes coded information defining the logic circuit. This coded information includes logic element coding, terminal pin coding, signature identification and mechanical criteria. Initially, the data processor calls a check routine that checks the coded input information to determine if errors exist in the logic diagram. For example, the input of a logic element may not be connected to a source, or a source may be connected to more elements than it is capable of driving without overloading. After checking to insure that the coded logic information contains no errors, a routine run by the data processor packages the logic elements into multielement units. These multielement units are located on a printed circuit board constrained by mechanical input criteria by a package placing routine. Next, a routing routine establishes coded data for interconnecting paths between terminal pins of the logic elements using a numbered ordered maze. The routing routine may be run as many times as desired in an attempt to complete all interconnections. Upon completion of the routing routine, the coded data representing the interconnecting paths is checked for completeness. Upon completion of the routing check, the coded routing data is conveyed to a plotter that produces artwork for a logic system.

A more complete understanding of the invention and its advantages will be apparent from the specification and claims and from the accompanying drawings illustrative of the inventron.

Certain portions of the method herein disclosed are not our invention, but are the inventions of: MARK F. ESKEW and BEVERLY F. HYDE as defined by the claims of their application, Ser. No. 001,525 filed Jan. 8, 1970; JOHN W. HILL and CHARLES L. SA'ITERWI-IITE as defined by the claims of their application, $81. No. 001,346, filed Jan. 8, 1970; and

JOSEPH A. BALLAS and ROBERT A. PENICK as defined by the claims of their application, Ser. No. 001,447, filed Jan. 8, 1970; all such applications being assigned to the assignee of the present application.

Referring to the drawings:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a data processing machine for generating instruction for the production of circuit artwork;

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a logic system including coding information to be read into the data processing machine of FIG. 1 for generating artwork for a printed circuit board;

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a process for producing artwork for a logic system of the type illustrated in FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a routine run by a data processing machine for packaging circuit elements into multielement packages;

FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a routine run by a data processing machine for placing multielement packages on a printed circuit board within mechanical criteria;

FIG. 6 is a flow chart of the routing routine run by a data processing machine for interconnecting element pins on a printed circuit board;

FIG. 7 is a flow chart of a pass one subroutine called by the routing routine of FIG. 6;

FIG. 8 is a flow chart of a pass two subroutine called by the routing routine ofFIG. 6;

FIG. 9 is a flow chart of a pass three subroutine called by the routing routine of FIG. 6;

FIG. 10 is a flow chart of a connector subroutine called by the routing routine of FIG. 6;

FIGS. 11A, 11B and 11C illustrate bounding limitations for the three subroutines of FIGS. 7, 8 and 9, respectively;

FIG. 12 is a block diagram of a system for generating artwork for a printed circuit board;

FIG. 13 illustrates the artwork for the top side of a twosided printed circuit board for the system of FIG. 2; and

FIG. 14 illustrates the artwork for the bottom side of a twosided printed circuit board for the logic system of FIG. 2.

Data Processor Smnplg Circuit.

General Process.

Routing Routine Routing Check V Generating Artwork DATA PROCESSOR Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a block diagram of a data processing machine for performing the heretofore described processes and producing instructions to be used in the generating of artwork for a printed circuit board. Data processing machines are described in numerous publications and a detailed description of each component is not deemed necessary. Such systems include a main storage 11 connected to an instruction and execution section 13 and storage control 15, both of which are part of a central processing unit. The central processing unit also includes a plurality of general registers 17 and several floating point registers 19. The central processing unit contains the facilities for addressing the main storage 11, for retrieving or storing information, for arithmetic and logical processing of data, for sequencing instructions in a desired order and for initiating a communication between storage and external devices.

External devices are coupled to the data processor by input/output channels 21 through either a multiplexer channel 23 or a selector channel 25. The multiplexer channel 23 separates the operation of high speed devices connected to the input/output channels 21. Selector channel 25 transmits data to or from a single input/output device at a time, and is capable of handling very high speed devices. To generate artwork for a printed circuit, the input devices connected to the channels 21 are tape read/write units, such as 27 and 29, a data card reader such as 31, or other similar units.

To generate circuit artwork with the system of FIG. 1, the required computer programs are read into the system from data cards by the data card reader 31. The storage control 15 causes the program data to be stored in the main storage 11 for use as required. In addition to program data, coded information defining the particular circuit of interest is also read into the system. Again, this may be by means of punched cards and the card reader 31. Additional information required to generate circuit artwork is in the form of mechanical criteria to define limits within which the data processor must operate.

Upon completion of the reading in of data to the machine, the instruction execution section 13 in conjunction with the main storage 11 and the storage control 15, operates with the registers 17 and 19 to perform the various processing steps required to produce instruction for circuit artwork. The final instructions are in the form of a coded tape as generated by the

tape readers

27 or 29.

To produce circuit artwork instruction, the system of FIG. 1 requires four basic programs; the first program checks the coded circuit data for completeness and accuracy and the second program assigns circuit elements to package units. F ollowing the packaging operation, the system generates representations locating each of the package units. After locating the packages within defined mechanical criteria, a fourth program generates representation of the interconnections between circuit pins, test points and connector pins. Following this, a fifth program is called from the main storage 11 to check for completion of the previous program. At the completion of each operation, a data tape is produced by one of the

tape readers

27 or 29. The final data tape contains instructions which are used, in the process of generating the circuit artwork. The data tape instructions may be executed on the present computer system as hereinafter described, on any other computer system which is capable of utilizing or trans lating the data tape instructions or on such computer systems in another location.

SAMPLE CIRCUIT Referring to FIG. 2, the logic system shown is intended as an example for describing the operation of the data processing machine of FIG. 1 for generating artwork to be used in the fabrication of a printed circuit board for the circuit. As illustrated by the flow diagram of FIG. 3, logic diagram information (block 10) is coded into machine language (block 12) acceptable to the data processing machine of FIG. 1.

To code the logic diagram for use in generating artwork for a printed circuit board, the first step is to assign names to each functional element of the logic system. Considerable flexibility is permitted in the selection of alpha-numeric characters for element names, allowing a coder to relate the name chosen for each of the various functions back to the system identification. In FIG. 2, the various circuit elements (gates) are identified by three-place, alpha-numeric codes. All two-input gates have been identified by a G2 representation followed by a letter to distinguish one two-input gate from the next. Similarly, fourinput gates have been identified with a G4 followed by an identifying letter. Thus, for the circuit example, the two-input gates have been designated as G2A, G2B, G2C, etc., and the four-input gates have been designated as G4A and 648. There are also two flip-flops in the circuit; these are identified as F2-l and F2-2.

After labeling all of the elements of the logic diagram, the next step in preparing coded information for a data processor is to label all the signature (signal) lines. The term signature originates from the concept that each signal line has a unique name and is normally driven by the output of one circuit element connecting to the inputs of several other functions. It is desirable, in many situations, to label the logic diagram with signatures that relate functionally to the operation of the circuit. For the example shown, however, alpha-numeric labels have been applied to the various signatures. In addition to identifying the various circuit elements and signature lines, each input and output terminal pin must be identified. This may be done by simply using A0, A1, A2, etc. for the various element terminal pins. A zero following the last letter of the identifying code may be used to signify an output terminal.

GENERAL PROCESS After completely identifying the logic diagram, by labeling all elements, signature lines and terminal pins as described above the logic system is coded using a format acceptable to the data processing machine of FIG. 1 which contains the programs to be run. Prior to reading the coded information into the data processor, the coded information is manually checked (block 14 of FIG. 3) to minimize coding errors being read into the processing machine. One of the simplest ways to check for errors is to run the coded information through a computer printer to obtain a simple computer listing and manually check the computer listing.

In addition to coding the logic diagram into appropriate machine language, the data processor must also be programmed with information describing the desired configuration of the resultant printed circuit board. First, a rough estimate of the space required to accommodate the logic elements is prepared (block 16) by the programmer. Using this rough estimate, mechanical criteria for the finished circuit board is defined (block 18) by the programmer.

The next step is to code the mechanical criteria (block 20) into a language that will be accepted by the data processing machine of FIG. 1. This coded data is checked (block 22) for accuracy prior to storing it (block 24) into the data processor. One check made by step 22 is to determine if there is a reasonable probability of completing the interconnections for the logic system within the mechanical limits established.

In addition to the physical geometry (shape and size) of the desired circuit board, other mechanical criteria entered in the computer by the programmer at this time from his rough estimate: (1) the maximum number of board sides on which the routing interconnections should be made, (2) the number and location of input/output connectors, (3) an initial placement pattern for the element packages, (4) a definition of power and ground planes, and, (5) an initial definition of locations and dimensions where a two-sided or multilayer board utilizes bussing. Further, information referencing the location of rows, and columns of package locations, connector configurations, drill holes, tooling holes, etc., is coded and entered into language acceptable by the data processor.

Up to this point, steps 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 in the process have been performed manually to code the logic system (in terms of labeled elements, signature lines and terminal lines) and to code initial mechanical criteria for the circuit board so that they can be used by the data processing machine. At this time, both the coded logic system information and the coded mechanical criteria information are read into the data processing machine thatis to generate a coded representation of the artwork required for the fabrication of the printed circuit board. The coded representation may be fed through the data processing machine directly to a plotter to produce the artwork or may be stored for example on tape so that the artwork may be produced at a future time or at a difierent location.

The process steps performed by the data processing machine are enclosed within the block 26. The first routine 28 run by the data processor is to further check the coding information describing the logic system in terms of labeled elements, signature lines and terminal lines to determine if a complete circuit or logic system has been defined. Also, the fan out of each logic element is checked to determine if it will be driving more logic elements than power available.

After the checking routine 28 has been completed, the coded logic information is used by a packaging routine 30 to assign the various logic elements to packages on a basis which will produce a routing pattern with short interconnecting paths. The packaging routine assigns the various logic elements to a particular package by a series of passes that selects the best multielement package formed for each element type. Upon completion of the packaging routine, all the logic elements have been assigned to a particular package which are identified by coded data.

Coded data of the multielement packages along with the mechanical input criteria will be next used in a package placement routine 32 for locating each of the logic element packages within the mechanical outline of the desired printed circuit board. In placing the multielement packages, those packages having the most connections to an input/output connector are identified so that they can be located nearest such input/output connector. After identifying packages for the connector positions, all the packages to be placed, including those identified for connector locations, are evaluated to compute a placement score. Detailed explanation of the placement score is later described beginning on page 35. The packages are then placed starting with the best score. The score of the packages affected by this placement are recomputed and the package with the best score placed in its best legitimate position. This sequence continues until all the packages have been placed. To improve the initial placement, the placement routine includes an interchange pass which considers all possible pair-wise interchanges. After completing the routine for placing the circuit element packages, the data processor contains coded information on the placement of each package, the X and Y coordinates of each terminal pin for each package, and the terminal pins to be interconnected.

Using this information, the data processor then runs a routing routine 34 that establishes the location of each interconnecting line of the logic system. The routing routine considers the X and Y coordinates of the terminal pins as start points and destination points and routes the interconnections in a numbered order. A numbered ordered maze and a backtracking technique are used to establish the various terminal pin interconnections. One complete run of the routine consists of three passes each have difierent bounding limitations for restricting the expansion of the numbered maze. After completing one run of the routine 34, additional runs may be made in an attempt to complete any incomplete interconnections. In the second and subsequent runs of the routine 34, the bounding limits are extended to allow additional area for expansion of the numbered maze.

After completing the routing routine, a check routine 36 considers each of the interconnections to determine if the routing routine has completed all the interconnections for the logic system. Assuming the routine 34 has not been able to complete all the interconnections, then the data processor prints out information which is used to manually alter and complete the interconnections. These alterations are then coded and re-entered into the data processor. Again, the check routine 36 checks to determine if the interconnection pattern has been completed.

Upon a determination that the routing has been completed, the coded routing information is read out and subsequently used to generate artwork, documentation, and tooling instructions (block 40). The actual artwork may be generated on a plotter of any well-known design. Tooling instructions may be in the form of a data tape produced by a machine responsive to the routing instructions.

At this time, a printed circuit board for the logic system may be fabricated by well-known techniques. If desired, the artwork may be manually verified (block 42), prior to the production of the printed circuit board (block 44).

DATA CHECKING ROUTINE In one form of the data checking routine, three separate subroutines are used. The first subroutine checks the coded information of the logic system read from a deck of cards and produces a magnetic tape and a listing of each of the items checked. From the listing, errors noted by the first subroutine are flagged and corrected by preparing new data cards. The second subroutine uses the magnetic tape produced from the first subroutine and the corrected data card to again check the coded input information. This second subroutine produces an updated tape of correct information about the logic system. This updated tape is then read by the third subroutine that performs additional checks and produces a magnetic tape in a format that can be read by the packaging, placing, and routing routines.

Coded information of the logic system of FIG. 2 is manually checked and read into the data processing machine through an input/output channel 21. As the information is read into the data processing machine, it is stored in the machines memory. In addition, the data processing machine has access to logic element information stored on a library tape. This tape contains, in coded form, a complete description of each logic element that may appear in the system of FIG. 2.

The coded input information of the logic system which has been stored in the data processing machine is initially checked by the routine 28 by comparison against the data of the information library. This check is primarily intended to determine if the correct code has been applied to the various logic elements and that such a device actually exists. The information library tape is also used to check the read-in information to determine if the correct code has been applied to the terminal pins of the logic elements.

Other checks made on the coded information are independent of the library information. Some of these additional checks are made simultaneously and others after previous checks have been completed. Depending on the check to be made, the coded input information may be rearranged and regrouped. One of the first group tests includes checking signatures to determine whether or not each signature (signal) has one source, that is, connects to a pin either on an input/output connector or on another element that constitutes a signal source. At the same time, a check is made to determine if any one signature has been used more than once in coding the logic system. To properly identify and keep separate each independent signature, a unique signature identifying code must be applied to each signal. A third check run on the signatures is to determine if the fan out from one logic element is in excess of an established limit. An excessive fan out" from any one logic element will result in electrically overloading that element. A fourth check on the signatures determines if one signature has more than one source. These four checks are all made on the signatures after the data has been arranged by signature.

Additional checks made on the input data by the checking routine are on the logic elements themselves. A check is made for the purpose of finding any duplication of the identification code applied to the elements. A further check of the logic elements determines whether each element has at least one input signature and one output signature. Still another check on the logic elements determines if each pin has a unique identifying code. A final element check determines if any element has only one pin identified by a pin code.

After all the above checks have been made by the first subroutine, the printout at the end of the routine contains an error list outlining the errors noted. These errors are referred back to the appropriate coded data card which is corrected. Using the corrected data cards and a magnetic tape produced at the end of the first subroutine, the second subroutine of the check routine 28 performs the same checks as detailed above. This additional check is required since changing any of the data input cards may turn up errors which did not appear on the first subroutine check. For example, on the first subroutine check the fan out" for a given element may have been within the established limit. As a result of correcting a data input card, this same element may now have a fan out" greater than the established upper limit.

Again, after completion of the second check subroutine, a magnetic tape is made containing the coded input information checked and corrected for accuracy and completeness. A third subroutine is then run by the check routine 28 to make further checks and prepare a tape for use in the packaging, placing, and routing routines. Additional checks made in the third check subroutine include (a) determining if the X and Y coordinates of each pin on a multielement package fit a standard configuration. The third subroutine check also (b) determines if a signature appears at an input/output connector pin; if it does, then it must also appear at a multielement package.

Additional checks made during the third check subroutine are directed to preplaced and prepackaged elements. First, a check is made to determine if all preplaced elements have been assigned a multielement package. If elements are prepackaged, a check must be made to determine if they have been sequentially numbered. A third check is made to find if two or more preassigned elements of a multielement package have been assigned to the same position in a package. There is also a check made to determine if a preassigned element has been placed in a legitimate position for that element. As a last check, the third subroutine determines if more elements have been assigned to one multielement package than possible for that type.

The above checks made by the third subroutine are to detect fatal" mistakes; any other mistakes are considered nonfatal while others will be passed. If a fatal mistake is detected, correction of the input data must be made and the subroutine checks one and two rerun. For the non-fatal mistakes, the packaging, placing, and routing routine may be run. If additional checks are made and errors detected the routine continues to run with the errors flagged. Upon completion of the third subroutine check, a magnetic tape is prepared that will be read by the packaging, placing, and routing routines, where required, as input data.

PACKAGING ROUTINE Considering the next step (block 30) in the flow chart of FIG. 3, the elements of the logic system are packaged.

Referring to FIG. 4, there is shown a detailed flow chart of the steps performed in the packaging routine to generate coded information representing multielement packages composed of the elements of the logic system of FIG. 2. Initially, a sorting step 46 arranges the elements of the logic system into groups by types. That is, all two-input AND gates are grouped as one type, all four-input AND gates as a second type, OR gates as a third type, etc. The number of groups formed by the sorting step 46 will be determined by the logic system.

After sorting the logic elements by types, a best package step 48 forms a best package for the first type on the list result ing from step 46 from non-packaged elements. This best package is identified as a best package yet." Next a best package step 50 forms a best package for the next type on the sorting list, again from elements not previously packaged. A comparison step 52, described in detail below, now compares the best package yet with the package formed by step 50. From the two best packages compared, one is selected, step 54, as the best package of the comparison.

The best package is selected in accordance with preestablished criteria which are dictated by electronic design rules (i.e., unless certain laws of nature regarding electronic circuits are followed a circuit will not operate properly) and also pre-established criteria which simplifies the design of the circuit. In the described embodiment, the best package is selected during comparison step 52, the following data is compared utilizing a pre-established set of priorities. First, the number of critical connector signatures is compared and the best package is selected on the basis of the package with the greatest number of critical connector signatures. If neither of the compared packages has a critical connector signature or if both have the same number of such signatures, the connections to fixed packages is compared and the best package will be selected on the basis of the one connected to the greatest number of fixed packages. If neither of the compared packages connects to a fixed package, or they both connect to the same number of fixed packages, the number of fixed signatures of each is compared and the best package which will be selected on the basis of which has the greatest number of fixed signatures. To break a tie, should the compared packages both have the same number of fixed signatures or should neither of the packages contain fixed signatures, the best package will be selected by still another priority; that is, the number of signatures of each is compared and the package has the fewest number of signatures is selected. If this priority does not produce a selected best package, then the best package will be selected by a rule based on the order the coded data was read into the data processor.

The best package selected in step 54 is now considered the new best package yet for future comparisons if required. The package not selected remains on the sorting list but is temporarily discarded, step 56, and not further considered for the particular position under consideration.

At this time, an inquiry is made as to whether all types of elements have been considered in selecting the best package yet, step 58. If the answer to this inquiry is no, then the routine returns to step 50 to form one new best package for the next type in the sorting list for comparison with the new best package yet at step 52.

Steps

52 and 54 of comparing and selecting are again repeated for the new selected best package which results in a best package yet. The inquiry 58 is again made after discarding the package not selected in step 56 to determine if all the types have been considered for selecting a best package yet.

When the inquiry 58 results in a yes answer, the best package yet is identified in step 60 as the selected best package and is then considered a fixed package." By definition, a fixed package is a prepackaged multielement unit or the best package yet resulting from the operation of

steps

50, 52, 54, 56 and 58. Each time a best package is identified as a fixed best package, the signatures associated with that package are also considered fixed. By definition a fixed signature is one that is connected to a fixed package or a connector pm.

After fixing the signatures in step 62 of the fixed package identified in step 60, an inquiry is made as to whether or not all the logic system elements have been packaged. If the answer is no, then the routine returns to step 48 to form a best package for the first type on the sorting list from nonpackaged elements. The routine then runs again through the steps illustrated to identify a fixed package in step 60 and fix the signatures thereof in step 62. After step 62, the inquiry is again made as to whether all the logic system elements have been packaged. When the answer to this inquiry is yes, the packaging routine is complete and all the logic elements of the logic system have been assigned to multielement packages. Each fixed package is represented by a code which contains the elements assigned thereto. This coded information is recorded on a direct ac'cess device which is then read by the placement routine 32 of FIG. 3.

To form the best package for each type in step 48, the procedure followed varies depending on the category into which the elements are classified. The three categories are: (l) the type has only one element per package, (2) all elements of one type can be packaged into one unit, and (3) the type has more than one element per package and more elements of the type are available than will fit into one package.

To form a best package for each of the above three categories, difierent priorities or rules are followed. For category l the logic elements of this type are first reviewed for the greatest number of critical connector signatures. The element that has the greatest number of critical connector signatures will be chosen as a best package for that type. When the elements of a given type have an equal number of such signatures, the element (of those tied) connected to the greatest number of fixed packages will be chosen as a best package. If the first two rules do not produce a best package for a particular type, the tied elements of that type are reviewed to determine which has the greatest number of fixed signatures. The element (of those tied) with the greatest number of fixed signatures for a particular type will then be chosen as the best package. If none of the remaining elements of a type which falls within category one has fixed signatures or there is a tie, the fourth rule to determine a best package for category one elements is on the basis of the fewest number of signatures. If this fourth rule (as applied to the tied elements) does not produce a best package for category one elements, a rule based on the order the coded data was read into the data processor is used to break ties.

To form a best package from elements within category two, the rule is that all remaining elements are packaged together. It is not necessary that all element locations of a package be utilized.

Category three elements will usually comprise the majority of the elements of a logic system. Rules for selecting a best package for elements in category three are divided into two sets; the first set is for selecting the first element to go into a package and the second set for selecting the remaining elements to form a best package.

To select the first element to form a best package, all the elements remaining in one type are considered to determine that one which has the greatest number of critical connector signatures. If any one of the elements has more critical connector signatures than the others, it will be chosen as the first element to form a multielement best package. Where none of the elements of a type have critical connector signatures, the first rule is not considered. If there is a tie between two or more elements, the first rule is disregarded as to the elements in the tie. Rule one, however, will then be used to consider other elements having critical connector signatures. After all the elements with critical connector signatures have been considered and a first element has not been chosen, then the second rule is applied to elements in the tie to determine the first element to form the multielement best package. According to rule two, the one element of those tied with the greatest number of signatures in common with a single input/output connector will be chosen as the first single element to form a new best package. Should rule two fail to produce a single first element because none of the tied elements have signatures in common with an input/output connector, the second rule is disregarded. If there is a tie between two or more of the elements, the second rule is disregarded as to the elements in the tie. Other elements having signatures in common with an input/output connector will be considered. When all such elements have been considered and a first element has not been will chosen, a third rule is used to select the first element from among those tied. Rule three selects the first element from those tied for a multielement best package on the basis of the element with the greatest number of signatures in common with a single fixed package. If rule three fails to produce a single first element, rule four is considered. According to rule four, that element with the greatest number of signatures in common with a single non-fixed element of the same type will be selected as the first element in a multielement package. In the case of a tie between elements or should none of the elements have signatures in common with a single non-fixed element, rule four will not choose a single first element and rule five must be considered. For rule five, the tied elements are reviewed to determine which have signatures in common with the greatest number of non-fixed elements of the same type. When rule five fails to produce a first element, rule six is considered. Rule six is somewhat general and will almost always produce a first element for a new best package. According to rule six, the element with signatures in common with the greatest number of elements of any type will be selected as the first element of a new best package. If rule six fails to select a single first element, a rule based on the order the data was read into the system is used to select such an element. In the order of generality, rule one is the most restricted, and rule six the most general. The likelihood of finding a first element by any of the six rules is increased in the higher numbered rules.

After selecting a first element for a new package, the second set of rules will be used to select the remaining elements from those-of one type to complete a best package for category three elements. To select the second, third, fourth, etc. element for a package, the first rule selects the element on the basis of which has the greatest number of critical connector signatures. Assuming that the routine is trying to select a second element, if rule one fails to select this element then rule two will determine which element has the greatest number of signatures in common with the partial package trying to be completed. When selecting the second element, the partial package will consist of only the first selected element. When none of the elements of a given type have signatures in common with the partial package, or should ties prevent selection of a second element, rule three will be considered to select the second element from among those tied. According to rule three, the second element for a package will be that one with the greatest number of signatures in common with the input/output connector and the greatest number of connections in common with the fixed package to which the first element chosen is connected. Although this rule appears to be restrictive, it is more general than rules one and two. When rule three fails to result in the selection of a second element, rule four will be used. Rule four selects an element from those tied on the basis of that one with signatures in common with the greatest number of elements of any type to which the partial package is connected. Note, that this is not between two elements of one type, but rather between all the elements in the logic system. Finally, should the first four rules fail to select a second element to be included with the first selected element, rule five will review the ties between elements of a given type to determine which has the greatest number of fixed signatures. The element from those tied with the greatest number of fixed signatures will then be chosen as the second element to form a best package lfrulg five dqesnotresult in PROGRAM C PACKAGING-"MAIN DECK C {file selection of a second element, a rule based on the order the data was read into the data processor is used to break ties.

All remaining elements required to complete a best package for a given type in category three will be selected by the rules described above with regard to the selection of element two. The partially completed package used in the selection of elements by the second set of rules includes the previous selected E men s.

For elements of category three, there are certain exceptions which override the rules for selecting the second, third, fourth, etc. elements to be assigned with the first selected element. An element having like input signatures and output signatures with the firs t selected element will be included in that package. This is one special condition that overrides the second set of rules. Another special condition is where the element has a special designation; that is, some special function elements must be packaged in a given configuration. For these cases, the second set of rules includes some variations Consider the situation where one special element is to be "packaged with one standard element. The first element for the package is selected from the special elements in accordance with the first set of rules. The selection of a second element to be placed in a package with the special element will be in accordance with the second set of rules except that all special elements will be flagged as not available. In this situation, the ;second set of rules is restricted to the standard element type LY F 9 P k uitht s 5W9; l

The step 48 of forming a best package yet is followed by the steps of forming a package for a comparison, step 50, comparing the package of step 50 with the best package yet, step 52, selecting the best package of the comparison, step 54, identifying the selected best package as a fixed package, step 60, and fixing the signatures of the fixed package step 62. When fixing the signatures of the fixed package, step 62, those signatures which are common to the input/output connector to which the first element chosen is connected are removed from the connector. Removing a signature from a connector affects all other elements with that same signature. Any rule which is based on connector signatures will not consider the removed signatures. Signatures are also removed from the fixed package that was considered in selecting a first element.

Referring again to the flow chart of FIG. 4, input data read from the direct access record produced by the third check subroutine is in the form of a code which defines each element of the logic system of FIG. 2 and includes an identification and signature coding. Assuming the use of an IBM 360 Computer to package the elements of the logic system, a program listing of instructions to generate representations of multielement packages is given in the Program Listing I. Instructions are 'listed in the program with identifier numbers corresponding to those assigned to the steps of the flow chart of FIG. 4. For example, the set of instructions from the beginning to a horizontal line identified as 46 are carried out in the step 46 of the flow chart of FIG. 4. Next, there is a set of instructions for a subroutine called by the main deck routine, also identified by 46. Thereafter there are lists of instructions performed in

steps

48 and 50, 52 and 56, 54 etc., respectively. The program listjing concludes with other subroutines which are called for in the preceeding program listing.

The language of the Program Listing I is Fortran and ALC.

LISTING I COWifiN/BLKB/NSIG ilSECO IPOSv ITVPE, IFLAG IGATE IXPANILNBYTE ,NHURD llDUMViBZ QJTYPZOOVNUNFXI l 2009 9 ISTRlTl 200) oNGATEp NGROP NCON

Claims

1. In a process for producing coded representations of circuit artwork for a desired logic system by a data processing machine from coded input information of such desired logic system wherein the data processing machine generates representations of packages of the logic system elements from the input information, assigns locations to the packages from the input information and from the representations of the packages and generates a coded representation of the circuit artwork comprising a representation of interconnections between the logic system elements, the steps in the routine for assigning locations to the packages comprising: a. computing an evaluating score and a best legitimate location for each of the packages from the input information of the desired logic system and from the representations of packages of the logic system elements in accordance with preselected criteria to determine the order in which the packages are to be assigned locations; and b. assigning the package having the best computed evaluating score to the best legitimate locations for such package and assigning the remaining packages to the respective best legitimate location for each of such remaining packages in order according to the respective computed evaluating score of such remaining packages until all packages have been assigned locations.

2. In the process of claim 1, the step of computing an evaluating score for each of the packages in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of dividing the number of packages to which a package under consideration is to be connected and which have previously been assigned locations by the total number of packages to which the package under consideration is to be connected.

3. In the process of claim 1, the step of computing the best legitimate location for the packages in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of comparing the respective sums of the signature wireability of each package to determine the best legitimate location for each package.

4. In the process of claim 3, The step of computing the best legitimate location for each package in accordance with preselected criteria further includes the step of assigning a location to a package with the smallest sum of the signature wireability first among a group of packages having the same computed evaluating score.

5. In the process of claim 1, the step of computing the best legitimate location for each package in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of selecting an available location not already assigned to a previously located package as a legitimate position for a package under consideration.

6. In the process of claim 1, the step of recomputing the evaluating score and the best legitimate location for each package affected by the assignment of a location to a previously located package before assigning locations to the remaining packages.

7. In a process for producing coded representations of circuit artwork for a desired logic system by a data processing machine from coded input information of such desired logic system wherein the data processing machine generates representations of multielement packages of the logic system elements from the input information, assigns locations to the multielement packages from the input information and from the representations of the multielement packages and generates a coded representation of the circuit artwork comprising a representation of interconnections between the logic system elements, the steps in the routine for assigning locations to the packages comprising: a. generating data representations which identify a multielement package having terminal pins to be connected to an input/output connector as a multielement package to be assigned a location associated with such input/output connector; b. computing an evaluating score and a best legitimate location for each of the multielement packages to be assigned locations including those identified to be assigned a location associated with the input/output connector from the input information of the desired logic system and from the representations of packages of the logic system elements in accordance with preselected criteria to determine the order in which the multielement packages are to be assigned locations; and c. assigning the multielement package having the best computed evaluating score to the best legitimate location for such package and assigning each of the remaining multielement packages to the respective best legitimate location for each of such remaining packages in order according to the respective computed evaluating score of such remaining multielement packages until all multielement packages have been assigned locations.

8. In the process of claim 7, the step of computing the best legitimate location for each of the multielement packages in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of selecting a location closest to the input/output connector for the multielement package with the greatest number of signatures in common with such input/output connector and selecting locations for each of the remaining multielement packages identified with such input/output connector at locations progressively further from the input/output connector in order according to the respective decreasing number of signatures such remaining multielement packages have in common with such input/output connector until all multielement packages identified with such input/output connector have been assigned locations.

9. In the process of claim 7, the step of computing the best legitimate location for each of the multielement packages in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of selecting a location closest to the input/output connector for the multielement package with the greatest number of signatures in common with such input/output connector and selecting locations for each of the remaining multielement packages at progressively further locations from the input/output connector in order according to the respective decreasing numbeR of signatures such remaining packages have in common with such input/output connector until a multielement package has been assigned to each location associated with such input/output connector.

10. In the process of claim 9, the step of cancelling the signatures of the input/output connector in common with a multielement package which has been assigned to a location associated with the input/output connector before consideration of further multielement packages for assignment to a location associated with such input/output connector.

11. In the process of claim 7, the step of computing an evaluating score for each of the multielement packages in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of dividing the number of multielement packages to which a multielement package under consideration is to be connected and which have been previously assigned locations by the total number of packages to which the package under consideration is to be connected.

12. In the process of claim 7, the step of computing a best legitimate location for each of the multielement packages in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of comparing the respective sums of the signature wireability of each multielement package to determine the best legitimate location for each multielement package.

13. In the process of claim 7, the step of computing the best legitimate location for each multielement package in accordance with preselected criteria includes the step of selecting an available location not already assigned to a previously located multielement package as a legitimate position for a multielement package under consideration.

14. In the process of claim 7, the step of recomputing the evaluating score and the best legitimate location for each multielement package affected by the assignment of a location to a previously located multielement package before assigning locations to the remaining multielement packages.

15. In a process for producing coded representations of circuit artwork for a desired logic system by a data processing machine from coded input information of such desired logic system wherein the data processing machine generates representations of packages of the logic system elements from the input information, assigns locations to the packages from the input information and from the representations of the packages and generates a coded representation of the circuit artwork comprising a representation of interconnections between the logic system elements, the steps in the routine for assigning locations to the packages comprising: a. computing an evaluating score and a best legitimate location for each of the packages from the input information of the desired logic system and from the representations of packages of the logic system elements in accordance with preselected criteria to determine the order in which the packages are to be assigned locations; b. assigning the package having the best computed evaluating score to the best legitimate location for such package and assigning each of the remaining packages to the respective best legitimate location for each of such remaining packages in order according to the respective computed evaluating score of such remaining packages until all packages have been assigned locations; c. selectively comparing the signature wireabilities of a pair of packages which have been assigned locations with the signature wireabilities of the same pair of packages if the assigned locations of such pair of packages were to be interchanged; and d. interchanging the assigned locations of the pair of packages if the interchange of such assigned locations improves the signature wireability as determined by the comparison of step (c).

16. In the process of claim 15, the repeating of steps (c) and (d) for additional pairs of packages which have been assigned locations until the total improvement of the signature wireability determined by the comparison of step (c) is less than one percent of tHe total wireability of the complete desired logic system.

17. In the process of claim 15, the assigned location of the pair of packages is interchanged during step (d) when the sum of the signature wireabilities of the affected signatures in the interchanged position is less than the sum of the affected signature wireabilities of such pair of packages in their original position.

18. In a process for producing coded representations of circuit artwork for a desired logic system by a data processing machine from coded input information of such desired logic system wherein the data processing machine generates representations of packages of the logic system elements from the input information, assigns locations to the packages from the input information and from the representations of the packages and generates a coded representation of the circuit artwork comprising a representation of interconnections between the logic system elements, the steps in the outing for assigning locations to the packages comprising: a. computing an evaluating score and a best legitimate location for each of the packages from the input information of the desired logic system and from the representations of packages of the logic system elements in accordance with preselected criteria to determine the order in which the packages are to be assigned locations; b. assigning the package having the best computed evaluating score to the best legitimate location for such package and assigning each of the remaining packages to the respective best legitimate location for such remaining packages in order according to the respective computed evaluating score of such remaining packages until all packages have been assigned locations; c. temporarily interchanging the assigned locations of two of the packages which have been assigned locations; d. computing the signature wireability for affected signatures of the two packages as would exist after the temporary interchange of assigned locations; e. computing the signature wireability for affected signatures of the two packages as would exist before the temporary interchange of assigned locations; f. comparing the computed signature wireabilities of the two packages as would exist before and after the temporary interchange to determine if the interchange results in an improved signature wireability; and g. reassigning the two packages to the interchanged locations if it is determined during step (f) that an improved signature wireability would result thereby.

19. In the process of claim 18, the repeating of steps (c)-(f) for other selected pairs of packages until a possible interchange of the assigned location for all of the packages has been considered.

20. In the process of claim 18, (h) the repeating of steps (c)-(g) for other selected pairs of packages; i. the step of computing the total improvement of signature wireability resulting from the reassignment of packages to interchanged locations; and j. the repeating of step (h) if the total improvement of signature wireability is greater than 1 percent of the total signature wireability.

21. In the process of claim 18, the step of computing an evaluating score for each of the packages includes the step of dividing the number of packages to which a package under consideration is to be connected and which have previously been assigned locations by the total number of packages to which the package under consideration is to be connected.

22. In the process of claim 18, the step of computing the best legitimate location for each package includes the steps of: a. comparing the respective sums of the signature wireability of each package; and b. assigning a location to a package with the smallest sum of the signature wireability first among a group of packages having the same computed evaluating score.

23. In the process of claim 18, the step of computing the best legitimate location for each package includes the step of selecting aN available location not already assigned to a previously located package as a legitimate position for a package under consideration.

24. In the process of claim 18 the step of recomputing the evaluating score and the best legitimate location for each package affected by the assignment of a location of a previously located package before assigning locations to the remaining packages.